Discussion Paper

Methods Insights, Theories and Concepts to Support Action and Outreach within Development Orientated

Natural Resource Related Research

Prepared by Neil Powell

For the dialogue on Water Food and Environment (DWFE) and the Smallholders Systems Innovation (SSI) Programme

Uppsala July 2004

CONTENTS 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3 2 Action Research and Outreach......................................................................................... 3 3 Action and Outreach Narratives for Discussion and Reflection...................................... 6

Narrative 1: Using a Complex Systems Understanding to Operationalise Action and Outreach.......................................................................................................................... 6 Narrative 2 Outreach and Action: a Vehicle for Adaptive Management........................ 7 Narrative 3: Fostering an Enabling Environment for Outreach and Action: Choosing between, and finding the appropriate mix of Coercive and Non Coercive Pathways .... 8

4. Conclusion: Developing an Interpretative Framework to Understand

the Role of Action and Learning in Research................................................................ 10 APPENDIX 1 Action Learning Case Study ..................................................................... 12

The Birds Eye View...................................................................................................... 12 APPENDIX 2 Insights into the Concept of Coherence ................................................... 19 APPENDIX 3 Examples of Platforms for Social Learning and Outreach from Namibia 20

1) The Use of Metaphor as a Learning Platform: the Case of the Crippled Hand........ 20 2) Activating Satellite Images as a Learning Platform ................................................. 23 3) GIS Supported Learning Platforms .......................................................................... 24 4) Ordination, Negotiation and Contesting Systems of Interest ................................... 25

References......................................................................................................................... 26

2

1 Introduction Underlying the relationship between water, related resources and poverty are competing claims and views over how water is used and accessed. These competing claims are multi-dimensional and integrated, often manifested in divisions created because of gender, ethnicity, land use, wealth, etc; divisions which are often expressed in regional, trans-boundary, sector and livelihood related conflicts of interest. In order to address the complex relationship between poverty, water and connected resources, one of the priority areas of the outreach and action agenda of the Natural Resource research is the adoption of an approach whereby platforms for dialogue and learning between competing and diverging interests are fostered - including support to capacity building, institutional development and process facilitation. It is assumed these platforms will contribute to the emergence of an enabling environment will emerge from this dialogue, leading to the equitable balancing of competing claims and system innovations. In the section below action research is examined as a potential methodological vehicle to:

1) address the complex problems that characterise natural resource related research; 2) enable cross-learning between the research projects and; 3) to operationalise outreach.

2 Action Research and Outreach For the purposes of this section, complex development issues are characterised by contested problems - problems that awaken a need for added dimensions for resolution, such as public participation and ethics. Amongst practitioners and the clients of development initiatives researchers are often criticised for spending large amounts of time trying to understand a problem without being engaged in change processes. Is the relationship between change and the research process closer in AR than in conventional research? Figure 1 depicts an action learning process, a process that serves as the foundation for AR. As the diagram above suggests, action research is about “learning by doing” By specifically designing the research process in a series of iterative cycles - plan, act, observe and reflect - the action researcher is engaged in ongoing process of formulation, reformulation and problem understanding. Within this approach the action researcher takes on the role as both an observer and a participant, and in so doing, becomes an explicit “agent of change”. In contrast, conventional research, bases its understanding and or explanation of a problem by situating the researcher as an objective observer” of the agents of change.

3

Plan

Plan

Act

Act

Observe

Observe

Reflect

Reflect

Theory

Theory

Plan

Cycle1

Cycle2

Figure 1 Iterative Learning Cycles A common criticism directed at the research community from the clients is that they commonly “miss the target” What is produced through research doesn’t reflect, or indeed address the problems at hand. Are the answers and understanding generated by an AR research process more relevant to the research problems than those generated by a conventional research process? In critiquing the evolution of action research Ison and Russel (2000) make a distinction between first order and second order change. In so doing they write in first person as action researchers, “Am I apart from the universe? That is whenever I look, am I looking through a peephole upon an unfolding universe (first-order tradition). Or: Am I part of the universe? That is whenever I act, I am changing myself and the universe as well (second-order tradition). What Ison and Russell allude to by making this distinction is a means for evaluating the “relevance of change” triggered by action research. Although action research, by design, leads to change; the nature of change is ‘more of the same’, the type of changes that may eventually emerge after a conventional research process. Change shaped by an outside expert’s perception of the problem. The second-order tradition diverges from conventional AR and is referred to either as systemic action research (SAR) or participatory action research (PAR). In action research it is common practice for those subjects who are part of the problem to participate in the plan, act and observe parts of the action learning cycle but to never be part of the reflection, farmer field trials for example. To do so would undermine the positivist rigor of the research. Mutual reflection with those who are part of the problem, the clients of research, distinguishes the second order tradition from the first. In so doing, problems are no longer viewed as objectively knowable, but rather social constructions dependent on those perceiving the problems. A problem cannot be explained; it can only be better understood, through better understanding the problem from the perspectives of others. The action researcher is demoted to one, of a community of co-researchers- those who are part of the problem. Hence in theory, action research conducted in line with the second-order tradition, will lead to a change that more aligned to the clients perception of the problem.

4

Is AR more participatory? Within the positivist research tradition it is easy to shrug off the scrutiny prompted by questions of participation, democracy or ethics. It part of and parcel of the epistemology to assume an objective position, to do otherwise would be unscientific!! In the first-order tradition, the reflection phase is the exclusive territory of the researcher; the reflection that will later lead to theory building and development action. In the second-order tradition the reflection phase is co-reflective with those who conceived and formulated the problem. To be reflective in an inter-subjective sense, as the second order tradition suggests, calls for a research process design that nurtures dialogue and learning between stakeholders and researchers. Hence the second-order tradition will, by its very nature, lead to the plurality that calls for a more critical approach to the questions of participation, ethics and democracy. Action Research or research which taints the object being studied is often criticised for not having the rigor of positivist science. Is AR Rigorous? Implicit within positivist science’s quest for objectivity is the requirement of acquiring knowledge by rigorous means. Experimentation is considered to be the foundation of rigorous enquiry on the assumption that there is a real world, a world which can be known through testing. Experimentation is seen as the principal means of generating knowledge that has integrity, knowledge that can be reproduced under similar conditions through time. The production of reproducible knowledge involves observing the rules of experimentation, such as implementing an identical methodology under identical conditions on repeated occasions to demonstrate that the same outcome emerges each time. Reproducibility in this sense can be equated to truth and objectivity. Positivism has been questioned as a sufficient basis for the knowledge with respect to the indeterminate factors that ultimately colour a scientist’s interpretation. According to Abram, despite science’s quest to be objective, the subjective/objective dichotomy is a meaningless divide as even the most supposedly determinate of experimentation cannot produce “value free” results owing to the inevitably production of indeterminate processes behind the actual act of experimentation (1996:30). Phenomenolgists for over 50 years have also been questioning objective science. According to Merleau-Ponty, a French phenomenologist, “all his knowledge of the world, even his scientific knowledge is gained from his own particular point of view” (1962:7-9). According to the latter view, every individual interpretation is the result of a range of subjective experience. It was this observation that left a vacuum, in the understanding of the foundations of knowledge, a vacuum that came to be filled by the concept of inter-subjectivity. Abram describes inter-subjectivity as “multiple subjectivities” (1996:37). If several subjects each endowed with their range of interpretative filters, arrive at a similar interpretation of a particular phenomena or problem, then the interpretation should be legitimate in the eyes of the larger community. In fact the quest for greater consensus amongst a multiplicity of subjects is what Husserl considers as real objectivity (1989:421). In this sense AR, as outlined in this paper, can deliver both the rigor demanded by the scientific and development communities.

5

3 Action and Outreach Narratives for Discussion and Reflection

Narrative 1: Using a Complex Systems Understanding to Operationalise Action and Outreach Water and associated natural resources generate many “surprises”. They are vulnerable to misuse and feedback connected to the misuse which affects the well being of people at basin level. Soil erosion leads to land degradation silting of reservoirs, lakes and estuaries. Runoff and reduced infiltration and retention lead to extreme events and overall reduction in quality of life (flooding, desiccation, and scarcity of drinking water and droughts). Pollution and water extraction have downstream multiplied effects, which may lead to conflict. In concert with the “surprises” basin systems are generally characterised as complex owing to the high degree of uncertainty as to cause and effect. This generally leads to widely differing accounts of what can or should be done to improve the situation. These situations, in which multiple stakeholders with different interests make competing claims over the same resources, are often referred to as “resource dilemmas”. Resource dilemmas often in turn lead the form of selfish behaviour attributed to open access resources and thereby inevitably result in the overexploitation of water and associated natural resources. An integrated approach can be seen as the movement away from trying understand and subsequently manage complex problems by adopting a reductionist approach. In contrast to the reductionist mode, where the iterations are made between the act of reduction, classification and analysis to make sense of the system, the systemic point of departure is the organisational relations of the larger whole. Capra (1996) suggests that systems’ thinking does not concentrate on the building blocks, but rather on the principles of organisation. In terms of outreach and learning is it useful to reflect upon the following key systems concepts: boundary, environment, system of interest, transformation, emergence and purpose. In situations which are perceived as complex, the key practice (done either by experts or stakeholders) is to distinguish or formulate a system of interest (see figure 1). This is done by making boundary judgements that distinguish a system from an environment. For the purposes of this paper a system will be defined as an assembly of components interconnected together as if they had a purpose (Open University, 2002) Within the water resource sector the typical boundaries that circumscribed systems of interest manifested as basins, catchments and watersheds. Naturally the other sectors will operationalise their action based on different conceptual units. In order to operationalise an outreach and action component it may be relevant to explore efficacy using researcher defined of systems of interest (watersheds, catchments, etc) but also an alternative approach in which the operational unit are defined by stakeholder systems of interest. In this regard Peter Checkland’s (1999) CATWOE model can serve as a useful framework how to operationalise action and outreach. CATWOE represents the following categories:

6

1) Clients of the systems 2) Actors in the system 3) Transformation of the system 4) Worldview underpinning the conception of the system 5) Owners of the system 6) Environment in which the system rests

CATWOE could serve as important learning device for researchers, but also as a practical tool for operationalising learning at different action scales.

Figure 2 Key elements which result in systems thinking (source: SLIM 2002)

A purpose shaped distinction

Boundary

Sub-system

System of Interest

Environment

Narrative 2 Outreach and Action: a Vehicle for Adaptive Management It is a common assumption that systemic relations, be they socio-economic or biophysical, are essentially linear. Connected with this are equilibrium-based models, used to represent both natural and human systems. Central to resource economics for example, is the way sustainability is expressed through models depicting ideals such as “maximum sustainable yield”, Pareto Optimality” and “market equilibrium”. The dominance of the Clementsian model as a platform for analysing sustainability in the ecological sciences is another indication the importance of equilibrium centred models in shaping our thinking in terms of natural resource management. Even in human centred disciplines such as anthropology, equilibrium centred theory, such as “structuralism”, has dominated the debates. A growing body of cases suggest that equilibrium centred models generates a misinterpretation of complex systems (Berkes and Folke 1998, Benke and Scoones 1993). Holling 1975 figure of 8 model of ecosystem dynamics has been important in shifting the interpretation of impact in natural and social systems away from an

7

equilibrium to a non-equilibrium focus. The model suggests that a system moves between four domains: conservation, release, exploitation and reorganisation. As the system shifts between the different domains, conventional notions of sustainability are challenged on two fronts. First, the degree of coupling, connectedness or linearity between impacts and the system is shown to be domain dependent. At a second level, the earlier definition of sustainability, which speaks, of “maintaining capital constant and undiminished” is contested. In the figure of eight model the degree of stored capital is once again domain dependent. In fact the model suggests that if the release of capital from the system is suppressed (by remaining in the conservation for an extended period) then its release will have catastrophic consequences. Water and water resource systems are inherently, non-linear and unstable. Extreme fluctuations of water flow in the large Basin systems of Southern Africa such as the Zambezi and Asia such as the Mekong is the norm. Floods and droughts precipitated by this variation are inherent in these systems. Further, the institutions governing water management, and the enabling/dis-enabling policy environment is also often inherently unstable. Hence in this regard integrated water science for the purposes of this paper is embodied in a research approach that grows out of the non-equilibrium school of natural resource management. The school is commonly coined the adaptive management school. The adoption of the adaptive management school should be considered as common platform for learning between researchers and indeed stakeholders in the researched catchments. The Holling model can be useful framework to explore problem contexts. There are many practical operational tools and guidelines emerging out of the adaptive management school that warrant examination.

Narrative 3: Fostering an Enabling Environment for Outreach and Action: Choosing between, and finding the appropriate mix of Coercive and Non Coercive Pathways In response to the problematic character water and associated natural resources they have conventionally been managed with two underlying approaches in mind. One, where the basin is understood primarily as just bio-physical system and hence problems are addressed through “instrumental” interventions such as water engineering or bio-monitoring in isolation from their social context and secondly; the “strategic” interventionist approach, which is applied when a change in behaviour (selfish behaviour) of stakeholders is required. This intervention is typically manifested as fiscal policies and regulatory measures. Institutions charged with implementing water resource management tend to be staffed by people from the technical school such as hydrologists, water engineers, drainage specialists, etc and or economists. Hence the indicators used to operationalise the regulatory framework setup to foster “sustainable water management” are often measures such as “cubic metres per second”, or levels of nitrates per milligram, etc. Coupled with this is the fact that many economists use normative models in which the notion of rational behaviour shapes the form and function of regulatory measures. Thus, the mandate of

8

these institutions, and indeed the policy climate in general, tends to be strictly governed by the “state of the water and water resources” and how optimal rational behaviour can be fostered, rather than the messy stakeholder processes that actually determine what happens on the ground (SLIM, 2004).

Fiscal Policy Regulation Compensation Facilitation

B New situation is emergent property of individual action

B New

situation

A

A B New situation

is based on

Use instruments Assume rational choice Rely on interaction Figure 3 Mechanisms to perpetuate change (SLIM, 2004a) The interactionist approach is a response to the frequent failure of instrumental and strategic reasoning in leading the sustainable management of water resources. In this approach, appropriate actions emerge out interaction (sharing problem definitions and monitoring, negotiation, conflict resolution, learning, agreement, concerted action) between multiple, inter-dependent stakeholders at different management scales within the basin. Underlying the interactionist reasoning is communicative processes characterised by dialogue. In line with this thinking, sustainable action at different scales is seen to occur when communication recurs in multiple feedback loops to produce a shared system of beliefs, explanations and values. This common context of meaning1 (platform) is fostered by ongoing dialogue and learning considered fundamental to the outreach. This process has been coined as social learning Supporting these platforms are partnerships which are forged at a different scales, area, country and region; and cross-sectorally. As liberating spaces, which in theory are absent from power relations, these platforms are operationalised to take on board the voices that are most often neglected in instrumental and strategic interventionist approaches: women, the most poor, those suffering from HIV/Aids and other marginalised groups. (for more information on the use of platforms to in supporting learning and outreach see appendix 3). 1 Capra 2002

9

4. Conclusion: Developing an Interpretative Framework to Understand the Role of Action and Learning in Research Kurst (2002) writes that on the learning loop a manager, or in our case a facilitator, is analogous to a gardener: the gardener cannot make the plants grow, he or she can only create the optimum conditions under which a plants natural self organising tendencies can function. Kurst and others in many branches and contexts have begun to adopt and adapt the earlier discussed Holling (1973) renewal cycle as a model to manage change for self-organisation in different systems. In its original form the renewal cycle is depicted a system as having four different states, in which it is continuously moving between, in order to retain the systemic flexibility, and plasticity, required to self organise.

A forest system is often used as a simple metaphor to better understand how the different renewal phases operate. The conservation phase depicts the forest successions and the point of conservation when the forest reaches its climax (top right hand corner of fig. 1). In contrast to the conventional understanding of forest dynamics, the renewal model suggests that the system resilience is undermined if the forest remains in the conservation phase too long. Hence a creative disturbance (D in fig. 1) or release is needed the shift the forest from its climax state. Those subscribing to the renewal model argue that a system needs to regularly cycle between these different phases in order to retain its capacity to self organise.

Figure 4 depicts a learning system situated within a renewal cycle. This model can be operationalised in order to critically reflect upon a learning systems outreach platforms, and their capacity to self-organise through action learning.

Figure 4 A renewal model, adapted by Powell 2003, used to critically reflect upon the relevance of using scientific data operationalised through techno-dialogical tools to support the capacity for learning systems to self organise

10

By way of brief introduction to the model, although the four phases of renewal C, D, R, and E are relevant to a learning system, action has been chosen as the organising principle of renewal for self organisation. Indeed Kurst (2002) aptly reflects that action creates the context for action. The four phases of an action learning cycle have been superimposed upon the renewal model as represented by observe, reflect, plan and act. Two additional interpretative dimensions have been included in the model. The first is connected to an earlier discussion about the nature of change triggered by first and second order processes; whereby the first order tradition is controlled by outside expert’s perception of problems, and problems are articulated with the support of first order data. This is in contrast to second order tradition, where a change is self organised through inter-subjective processes. Finally the model enables reflection over the level of coherence (see appendix 2 for an explanation of this concept) between the stakeholders at different points in process of in this case, the stakeholder meetings.

Appendix 1 presents a case study where the model above is operationalised in order to critically reflect upon learning processes associated with outreach of scientific understanding to farmer in a catchment in NE Italy.

11

APPENDIX 1: Action Learning Case Study (Extract from Powell and Toderi 2003) Management of catchments in Serra de’ conti and Montecarotto, Marche region is complex owing to conflicting demands on water and land. Stakeholders include part-time, full-time, ecological and conventional farmers, local inhabitants, environmentalists, and small water dependant industries. Metaphors to articulate the complexity include: landscape and land use heterogeneity is diminishing. Tensions between environmental services and the common agricultural policy, Nitrates in our drinking water. In order to make a contribution to better understanding complexity in these catchments Researchers from the university of Ancona (SLIMAN) have been conducting research on the relationship between cropping systems and nitrate leaching. The research up until its inclusion in SLIM was undertaken as first order research via the monitoring two sub-catchments. In order for SLIMAN research to be partially transformed into a second order procedure a GIS learning meeting was held with a number of farmers from the Montecarotto catchment and SLIMAN scientists. The process for the meeting was designed in such a way to enable farmers to critically reflect upon a number of broad parameters that were hypothesised by the SLIMAN researchers as drivers of nitrate leaching in local watersheds. The parameters included: topography, as depicted by a digital elevation model; soil organic matter as depicted by a GIS image and cropping regime as depicted by a series of GIS images. Farmers were invited explore the GIS visualised data sets for two watersheds and draw on their own experiences to learn about how their action influences nitrate leaching. The meeting was characterised by a rich dialogue. Post meeting SLIMAN participants and farmers suggested a new sense of trust between researchers and farmers has emerged and moreover a willingness to build a co-learning platform at catchment level.

The Birds Eye View “The upstream, downstream discussion” – “Deposition problems in higher order and lower order streams” “Not in my backyard” “Communication between groundwater and surface water”, etc, etc are examples of the integratedness of catchment level problems. The capacity is low for discrete stakeholders to understand the implications of their actions through spatially and temporally holistic lenses. This partial view or struggle to understand the systemic nature of catchments leads inevitably to dis-coherence and resource dilemmas. In the Italian case, remotely sensed images were used to facilitate a common context of spatial and in one case temporal holism.

12

Photo 1 & 2 Aerial Photographs of 2 watersheds sampled by SLIMAN in the larger Monte Carotto catchment Area. Photo 1 was taken in 1985. Photo 2 depicts the present day situation (Source: SLIM 2004c) At the early stages of the Italian learning platform meeting two aerial photographs were displayed. One photo depicted a watershed from 1985 and other a present day watershed (see photos 2&1 respectively). These photographs not only supported a spatial but also a temporal widening of participants of systemic window to critically reflect upon processes in their catchments. Moreover the concept of watershed was explored by observing the watersheds depicted in the photographs. In the process of nurturing “watershed” as a common concept between participants, dialogue emerged pertaining to the effects of practices at the top of the watershed on activities at the bottom. In this regard the top end non-ecological and bottom end ecological land use was reflected upon. Watershed as a common interpretative context between participants also supported dialogue on how impact of a specific practice at the level of a watershed is different from its impact at catchment level. The temporal depth established by comparing and contrasting photographs enabled participants to reflect upon the decrease in land use diversity and the disappearance of livestock from the catchment. One of the participants referred to this change as moving from a closed to an open agricultural system. In the past the system was closed owing to its ability to re-cycle (systemic cycling) due interdependent land use strategies and waste products from livestock. Today it is open because inputs must come from the outside – fertilisers, pesticides and EU subsidies.

13

PROCESS PHASES (framed in learning model (fig 5)

ITALIAN STAKEHOLDER MEETING

Phase 1 Context Immersion This phase was intended to assist farmers to mentally transcend the rather abstract confines of the meeting locale, and immerse themselves in the context of the studies. Additionally this phase was intended stakeholders in become accustomed to participating in a dialogue by introducing a relative unfocussed support medium

Photos 2 and 3 were presented - depicting the 2 sampled watersheds. A rich dialogue emerged pertaining to catchment level processes. A high level of interaction between most participants was observed. Many different catchment related issues were discussed. The levels of enthusiasm were so high between participants that after over 1 hour’s discussion the GIS facilitator was forced to intervene and move the process to phase 2 by displaying a new image.

Phase 2 Observation 1 First order data depicting the researcher perspective of a problem was presented to the participants

Photos were displayed of the watersheds and of the monitoring instrument used to measure nitrate levels at the bottom end of the watershed. Simultaneously the objectives of the study were briefly presented. Parameters considered as probable drivers of nitrate leaching in the watersheds were presented as GIS images. These included topography (image 1.1 and 1.2), depicted as digital elevation models of catchment; soil organic matter (images 2.1&2.1); and cropping system regime (images 3.1&3.2). This phase took approximately one hour and a rich dialogue pertaining to each parameter was observed between the participants.

Phase 3 Reflection 1 An open forum to enable 2nd order processes. Participants were given the opportunity to contest the technical order generated by researchers by deconstructing and translating it into their own terms. Articulated dis-coherence between stakeholders in this phase is indicative of social learning.

Participants were invited to critically reflect upon the researcher’s perspective of probable drivers of nitrates and then choose the driver which they believed was most important to nitrate leaching. Again rich dialogue emerged in which both farmers and researchers were engaged. In exploring the research question the participants actively directed the GIS operator by requesting him to move between different GIS images of the catchment, to zoom in on specific objects, etc. Participants openly contested the views of others and gradually two perspectives began to emerge with one group supporting the view that the catchment with the most heterogeneous cropping system leached most nitrates. The other view maintained that the least heterogeneous system leached most. This phase lasted over 40 minutes

Phase 4 Plan In this phase a common context of meaning begins to emerge from the self-organisation that occurred in the reflection phase. Participants may use this context to begin to formulate a plan for actions. The evolution of a common context

Researchers presented their perspective of the most important driver of nitrate levels – cropping systems and suggested that the more heterogeneous the cropping strategy the less nitrates leached. Again a discussion emerged and one farmer, Valentini, was surprised with the researcher’s conclusion. He said he had earlier

14

also results in greater coherence between perspectives

misinterpreted the researchers view and was very happy to hear that his views cohered with researchers. A researcher commented that she was surprised that farmers were so environmentally sensitive. Participants requested more stakeholder meetings with researchers and even with other actors such local politicians and town dwellers. This phase continued for approximately 30 minutes

Phase 5 Action Emerging out of the common context is collective action between stakeholders

Another meeting is planned for later in year where stakeholders will discuss environmental services in the catchment through exploring SLIMANS research on Barn Owls. There after the meeting closed but farmer were reluctant to leave and kept discussing amongst themselves. (1am)

Participants 5 staff members SLIMAN, 10 farmers one of which was a female farmer.

Setting and Miljö Round table meeting in combination with refreshments and wine at a local restaurant.

Technology support Computer with zoom cannon. Clear view for all participants

Facilitation Done by the GIS operator Marco Toderi (local inhabitant and SLIMAN researcher). It was suggested that group was very responsive to his facilitation. As the GIS support in the meeting proved to be a central focus of in the meeting Marco was able to actively use this as an instrument to facilitate the group.

15

Image 1.1 Digital Elevation Model of Sub-Catchment 1 (Source SLIM 2004c)

Image 1.2 Digital Elevation Model of Subcatchment 2 (Source: SLIM 2004c)

16

Image 2.2 Depiction of Organic Matter Concentrations in Subcatchment 1 (SLIM 2004c)

Image 2.2 Depiction of Organic Matter Concentrations in Sub-Catchment 2 (Source: SLIM 2004c)

17

Image 3.1 Seasonal Cropping Regimes in Sub-Catchment 1 (Source: SLIM 2004c)

Image 3.2 Seasonal Cropping Regimes in Sub-Catchment 2 (Source SLIM 2004c)

18

APPENDIX 2 – Insights into the Concept of Coherence (Extract from SLIM 2004c) For the purposes of this paper complex problems emerge when there are diverging stakes in the problem, making selfish action the rational choice of those who are part of the problem. This form of selfish action in environments characterised by multiple stakeholders, will be referred to as a resource dilemma.

Those managing complex problems can either choose to coerce, control the leading conflicting interests into acting altruistically, or to non-coercively enable conflicting interests to “self organise” an altruistic action. Despite the theoretical appeal of the non-coercive approach, the fact remains that it is far simpler to respond a single perception of a complex problem and force other perspectives to adhere to accordant action, than to shape the response based on multiple perspectives. Social learning is crucial to resolving resource dilemmas through a non-coercive approach. Social learning is seen to occur when communication recurs in multiple feed back loops to produce a shared system of beliefs, explanations and values. This common context of meaning2 is fostered by ongoing iterations between communication and cognition, and may eventually lead to the emergence of self-organised concerted actions – as a response to complexity. Indeed, Wenger (1999) argues that its members through the negotiation of meaning ultimately produce practice. In order to better understand how dialogical tools can foster social learning, in this paper social learning will only be treated as “cognitive convergence”. That is to say “convergence of concepts theories, norms, goals, indicators, symbols, etc; so that multiple autonomous actors become integrated and able to act collectively (SLIM 2004, Learning Processes Policy Brief).

Cognition is said to be made up of the following four key dimensions:

(a) Perception: ability to perceive and experience the environment,

(b) Emotion: feelings, value, criteria, that allow assessment of what is perceived,

(c) Theory: that allows for prediction

(d) Action: both capacity to action and the action itself

Complementarities between these dimensions are referred to as coherence. Divergence between the dimensions is often referred to as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can occur at the level of an individual subject or indeed between subjects. In this paper, only multi-dimensional dissonance between subjects or interests will be taken up in the examination of dialogical tools. Cognitive dissonance between subjects can be articulated by exploring their own individual systems of interest. A system of interest is defined by the intended purpose a subject ascribes to the environment. Once articulated, the purpose will make it possible to distinguish the system of interest from the environment by ascribing a boundary. Boundaries that do not concur are indicative of dissonance. The case material presented in this report firstly refers to dissonance between stakeholders and secondly illustrate how, through a process of boundary negotiation,

2 Capra (2002)

19

stakeholders can move closer towards a point of coherence through a process of social learning, APPENDIX 3 Examples of Platforms for Social Learning and Outreach from Namibia Land use planning in the Nyae Nyae area in Namibia is complex owing to competing claims over how existing and artificial water points should be managed. Stakeholders include; the local inhabitants - the San, tourist operators, foresters, wildlife managers and Herero pastoralists. Some metaphors that articulate the complexity include: Artificial water points keep wildlife in the region all year round. Elephants destroy our Marula stands. Fire stops regeneration of woodlands. Absence of fire leads to woody encroachment. In 1994 a co-management project was conceived as a means to facilitate a natural resource management dialogue between stakeholders in the region. In connection with the project a community land assessment was conducted. The assessment included a participatory resource inventory elicited by employing tools to create platforms for dialogue with local communities. The understanding generated by the inventory was thereafter depicted at number of stakeholder meetings via a GIS, ordinated scatter diagrams and satellite images. The data was presented in a way that supported dialogue and social learning, thereby contributing to the development of a common context of meaning between stakeholders. The following section presents a number of the learning platforms that were developed as part of the land assessment process in order to foster learning and outreach between stakeholders in the Nyae Nyae area.

1) The Use of Metaphor as a Learning Platform: the Case of the Crippled Hand During the course of the community land assessment it became clear that the local communities knowledge (Ju’Hoansi) could not be readily captured and assimilated in the standard formalised routines associated with rangeland management and data interpretation. Nor were their heterogeneous views compatible to being “reduced” to positivist’s demands of single truths or solutions. This was evidenced at a number of stakeholder meeting where the Ju/’hoansi struggled to articulate their views in terms that were meaningful to other stakeholders. In acknowledgement of this with the support of a facilitator the Makuri community resorted to the naturalistic language of metaphor as a dialogical tool for describing, explaining and analysing systemic relations, patterns and trends (Powell 1998). A “crippled hand” was one metaphor that the community used to explain their relationship to land and resources in the Nyae Nyae. The notion of crippled is indicative of the fact that the biophysical system (the top of the hand) is decoupled from the nurturing socio-economic (bottom of the hand) (see picture 1). Existing tensions in terms of rights and control (stop hand), reciprocal relations (a weak handshake), resource alienation (a bloody hand), knowledge and skills (the hands dexterity) and so on disabled the system’s capacity to with the uncertainty perpetuated by the periodic systemic shocks. It was in such a way that the crippled hand metaphor was operationalised by the land

20

assessment programme to every sub-community in the area to generate consensual intersubjective statement of the status of their system:

Picture 1 The Crippled Hand (Source: Powell 1998) The Strength of the Hand: The strength is associated with the presence/absence of natural resources, including plant and animal species and water the seasonal contribution, the nature of land in relation to human demography, the history of residence in the area, and the skill, knowledge and means need to subsist from the area. The Hand’s Weakness: Weakness is associated with natural resource problems and constraints in relation to problems a community might have in controlling the use and management of the resource(s). The Treatment for the Hand: Treatment is associated with management strategies, and to the attitudes and aspirations of the community utilising land and other resources. (Powell 1998) In conjunction with operationalisation of the crippled hand a learning platform each community developed, using a participatory approach, maps of the human and natural resource systems (see maps 1 and 2). At the same time individuals were appointed from the community to monitor the elements depicted on the maps. The reporting from the monitoring followed the format articulated by way of the crippled hand metaphor namely in term of strength, weakness and treatment of the system. Intense dialogue emerged in

21

the collective deliberations of which elements would become “visible” in the emergent land perception for the land assessment.

Map 1 Community map depicting resource areas from N//aquosi N!ore (Source Powell 1998)

Map 2 Community map depicting the human resources in Djhoxo N!ore (Source Powell 1998)

22

By participating in the learning process and dialogue associated with land assessment member of the community became more adept at articulating their views in a way that could affect change at the level of multi-stakeholder platforms. Below several multi-stakeholder learning platforms emerging out of the community land assessment are presented below.

2) Activating Satellite Images as a Learning Platform A spot satellite image over the Nyae Nyae area was displayed to a number of local resource users and elders from the community (image 1). By requesting the image operator to zoom the image in and out participants of the meeting were able to gain a sense of entire catchment and it relationship to their own territories and resource places. Participants were then invited to classify the catchment, using their own local land cover classes, through a process of spatial and spectral recognition of the patterns displayed on the satellite image. This image classification procedure is most commonly undertaken by “outside experts” and is referred to in technical terms as “supervised classification”. In this procedure the operator, or in the case of the Nyae Nyae –operators, train the computer to recognise a set features with similar spectral (reflectance) characteristics. In the training process the operator creates a number of distinct spectral signatures. A signature is subsequently equivalent to a distinct land cover class. In the process of establishing spectral signatures the operators must determine where to place the boundary around those spectral characteristics that are considered part of the system of interest and those which are outside (see image 1 for example of one spectral signature). The process negotiation of the boundaries circumscribing spectral signatures (systems of interest) and emergence of common land cover classes resulted in rich dialogue pertaining management issues in the Nyae Nyae catchment. See image 2 for the common context of meaning participants that emerged from negotiation over land cover classes

Image 4 Composite Image of part of the Nyae Nyae. Areas circumscribed in red represent 1 set of systems of interest used by a number of local inhabitants to represent the spectral diversity in a local land cover class – g/ue – thick tall trees and bushes. (Source: Powell 1998)

23

Image 5 A classified spot image and a common context of meaning depicting local land cover classes. Areas circumscribed in black represent 1 set of systems of interest used by a number of local inhabitants to represent the spectral diversity in a local land cover class – g/ue – thick tall trees and bushes. (Source: Powell 1998)

3) GIS Supported Learning Platforms The GIS image below depicts the output of a process where stakeholder from a community in Namibia negotiated over their systems of interest. Process of the self definition and negotiated systems of interest was support by GIS depictions of resource places, the presence/absence of plants, animals and water in these resource places and location and character of settlements.

Image 6 a GIS Image Supporting Dialogue and Negotiation of Systems of Interest (Source: Powell 1998)

24

4) Ordination, Negotiation and Contesting Systems of Interest Correspondence analysis, a non-linear form of ordination, is being examined for its potential support the technical translation of first order data; whereby stakeholder can contest technical orders and others systems of interest. After data has been ordinated it is displayed as a scatter diagram. It is at this point that stakeholders can ascribe boundaries circumscribing those elements considered as falling within their systems of interest. The process of ascribing system boundaries around elements supports the dialogue and the delineated systems represent common contexts of meaning. Below an ordinal plot is depicted. This plot was supported dialogue between stakeholders in the Nyae Nyae about coherence in land management practices between different sub-communities. First order data from a community land assessment was used as the organising principal for the ordinal scatter plot. The clusters of sub-communities circumscribed in different colour represent the agreed perceptions of collective action units at that point in time.

. Image 7 A Scatter Plot from Ordination of First Order Data from a Community Land Assessment. (Source Powell 1998)

25

References Abram D. A, 1996, The Spell of the Sensuous; Vintage Books, New York. Behnke R. H. and Scoones I, 1993, Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for

Rangeland Management in Africa; in Benhke R. H, Schoones I, and Kerven C, (ed.), Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas; Overseas Development Institute, London pp1-30

Berkes F and Folke C, 1998 (ed.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Capra F, 1996, The Web of Life; Flamingo, London. Capra F, 2002, The Hidden Connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and

social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability; HarperCollins Checkland P and Scholes J, 1999, Soft Systems Methodology in Action; John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex. Holling C. S, 1973, Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems; Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. Husserl E, 1989, Epilogue; in R Rozcewicz and A Schuwer (Translated), Ideas

Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology II. Ison R and Rusell D, 2000, Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking

Out of the Traditions; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Merleau-Ponty M, 1962, Phenomenology of Perception; Translated by Colin Smith,

Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Open University, 2002, Position Paper on Social Learning; Unpublished Working Paper,

the Centre for Complexity and Change, Open University, Milton Keynes. Powell N, 1998. Co-Management in Non-Equilibrium Systems: Cases from Namibian

Rangelands; Published Doctoral Thesis, Agraria 138, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

Powell N and Toderi M, 2003, Use of GIS and other Techno-dialogical Tools to Facilitate and Monitor Social Learning; Proceedings of the Symposium for Urban Landscape Dynamics and Resource Use, Uppsala, Sweden, 28th –31st August, 2003.

Powell N and Jiggins J, 2003, Participatory Land and Social Assessment; in H Becker, F Vanclay & C Wolf, (ed.) International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment, Edward Elgar Press.

SLIM 2004a, Facilitation Policy Brief SLIM 2004b, Learning Processes Policy Brief SLIM 2004c, Dialogical Tools: A Methodological Platform for Facilitating and

Monitoring Social Learning Processes; SLIM Working Papers, Case Study Monograph 5 (in print).b

Wenger E, 1999, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

26